High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balwinder Singh Dhillon vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 17 September, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh Dhillon vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 17 September, 2008
CWP NO.5787 OF 1988                            :1:


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH.



                  DATE OF DECISION:          17.9.2008


Balwinder Singh Dhillon                    ...Petitioner


                        VERSUS
The State of Punjab and another             ...Respondents




                     CORAM

      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI


PRESENT: Mr.Arun Kathpalia, Advocate for the petitioner

            Mr.Sudhir Sehgal, Sr.DAG, Punjab for respondent

Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was appointed as Sub Divisional Officer

(Panchayati Raj) on 17.10.1980 being holder of degree in Civil

Engineering. By order dated 11.2.1984, the petitioner was given

charge of the post of Executive Engineer (Panchayati Raj) which

was lying vacant at the relevant time. At the time when the

petitioner was given charge to the post of Executive Engineer, there

were no statutory rules, though draft rules were prepared. In the

year 1985, the State Government issued Executive Instructions on

13.5.1985 pending finalisation of the statutory rules. Under these

executive instructions for promotion to the post of Executive

Engineer, a person in the cadre of Sub Divisional Officer should
CWP NO.5787 OF 1988 :2:

possess the degree in Civil Engineering from a recongised

university or a diploma in Civil Engineering with an AMIE

Certificate with minimum of seven years experience as Sub

Divisional Officer (PR) and subject to passing of the departmental

examination and completion of period of probation. It is admitted

case of the petitioner that in the year 1984, he was not possessed of

minimum seven years of experience as Sub Divisional Officer.

Petitioner acquired the requisite experience of seven years on

17.10.1987. He made a representation for promotion to the post of

Executive Engineer on the ground that he is holding the charge of

Executive Engineer since 1984 and a post is lying vacant. The

grievance of the petitioner is that one Pritam Singh was also given

the charge of the post of Executive Engineer, but he was released

the grade and scale of that post. On 27.5.1988, the Government

issued fresh Executive Instructions and minimum eight years period

was prescribed for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer

from the Sub Divisional Officer. The petitioner accordingly

approached this Court, seeking direction that he may be given

promotion on the basis of the original instructions of 1985 as

Executive Engineer against the vacancy held by him w.e.f.

17.10.1987. Respondent no.2 was not impleaded as a party initially

in the writ petition. However, respondent no.2 filed an application

for impleadment which was allowed and he was impleaded as

respondent no.2 in the writ petition.

The State as also respondent no.2 filed their separate

disclaimers. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the
CWP NO.5787 OF 1988 :3:

petitioner and respondent no.2 participated in the same selection

through the Public Service Commission wherein respondent no.2

was placed higher in merit than the petitioner. Consequently, the

inter se seniority of the petitioner qua respondent no.2 was

determined and respondent no.2 was placed at Sr.No.2 and the

petitioner at Sr.No.3. Both were granted promotion as Executive

Engineer on 29.11.1990. Petitioner filed CWP No.5020 of 1997

challenging the promotion of respondent no.2 on the ground that he

could not clear the probation period within the prescribed time. This

writ petition was dismissed by this Court and an appeal being Civil

Appeal No.2304 of 1999 was also dismissed on 21.2.2002 by

Hon’ble Apex Court. Consequently, seniority of petitioner and

respondent no.2 was determined and respondent no.2 was placed

above the petitioner. This seniority was again challenged by the

petitioner in subsequent CWP No.15535 of 2003 which was later on

withdrawn on 13.1.2004. It is stated on behalf of respondent no.2

that in the year 1984 when the petitioner was given the charge of

Executive Engineer, he was not eligible under the executive

instructions and on availability of the post he has been promoted.

Under the above circumstances, I find no merit in this petition

which is accordingly dismissed.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

17.9.2008
MFK
CWP NO.5787 OF 1988 :4: